• m_fOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    you are now dismissively declaring it impossible

    I mean that I can’t read your mind, and it doesn’t enhance discussion for me to assume what you meant.

    There is a parallel in the state violence I’m referring to

    Wait, so you are comparing the two, contradicting your previous comment?

    tangent stuff

    Feel free to argue about it with someone else. I have no interest in arguing about what Dems in general are doing, I’m answering specific claims about Walz.

    One can also take a topic and completely miss the important factors because they have arrived at a false, simple answer.

    Yes, this is exactly what you’ve done, due to black and white thinking.

    Looking at how the cops and national guard behaved

    You’re confused about the situation. I don’t think we’re getting anywhere, so let’s agree on “Fuck MPD”. If you or anyone else is interested, Wikipedia has a pretty good list of police violence during the protests. It’s long, but includes lots of incidents outside of the Twin Cities as well. It can be hard to tell who exactly is responsible for which actions, because a lot of reporting just says “police”, without delineating between MPD vs the National Guard vs other forces. I don’t like cops, but blaming Walz for the MPD doesn’t make sense. Blame this weasel or this piece of shit.

    Interestingly, the most objectionable thing that I remember (the “light 'em up” thing) may have been people unaffiliated with the police or National Guard:

    And it’s unclear which agency the officers in the video are from. Both Minnesota National Guard spokesperson Army Lt. Col. Kristen Augé and Minneapolis Police Department spokesperson Garrett Parten told USA TODAY the men in the video were not part of their organizations.

    Of course, you have to balance that against the very real possibility of them lying about it.

    Anyways, you ignored about 2/3 of what I said. Why is that?

    I was picking the most relevant bits, as otherwise conversation tends to explode in size exponentially.

    EDIT: If you want to do a better job of representing hexbear to the wider fediverse, read this and self-crit:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

    • TC_209 [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      “Gish gallops” are intended to bamboozle the uninformed audiences of spoken debates; you can’t “Gish gallop” in an online text conversion. Stop carrying water for genocide enthusiasts.

      • m_fOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        You can and they did.

        I hope you and the other commenter both someday achieve the maturity to look back on this conversation and be embarrassed. I further hope you’ll move beyond embarrassment and realize that it’s part of growing up to make mistakes like that.

        • TC_209 [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          No, it’s literally impossible to Gish gallop with text – readers take in texts at their own pace, they can re-read sections until they fully understand what authors are trying to express, they can stop reading texts and fact-check authors at any time, they can choose to stop reading texts whenever they feel confused or overwhelmed. Text-based debates (or conversations in this case) neutralize all the rhetorical tricks of the Gish gallop. Stop carrying water for genocide enthusiasts.